I've come upon an expression: The one that survives a danger, survives, and the one that doesn't survive that danger, dies. The one that survived that danger, won't survive another danger, so will die when that comes. But another will survive this danger, that won't survive another danger which another one will survive, on and on into eternity.

Another : The one that survives a danger, has not encountered a danger. So it doesn't survive anything, it just lives its life.

I've got a better Idea. Instead of trying to second guess mother nature on what defines "Fitness" or "an acceptable population", why don't we just let it all sort out? If it's really neccessary to reduce the population, It'll happen naturally, and those who survive to reproduce will be the fittest. We call this process "natural selection" and it is the exact opposite of Eugenics.

You cannot predict with certainty what the future will hold, and what traits will perform well in it. Traits which seem maladaptive to us can, under the right circumstances, be survival traits. Sicle cell anemia is the perfecct example of this. People with two copies of the gine have a horrible genetic desease, but people with one copy are resistant to malaria. In areas where malaria is an issue, It's adaptive despite the desease because a few people with sickle cell is better than everone with malaria.

What other traits might we eliminate that prove to be adaptive? Almost any trait can be adaptive in the right situation, even things like mental retardation. The strongest population is one that carries within it the greatest diversity of traits. In our hypothetical situation, the best long term selection method would be complete randomness, with as large a sample set as possible.

Come on. We're rewilders. When we choose which animals survive based on traits we desire we call it domestication. We're against that. We place the greatest value on biodiversity, which includes diversity within a species. We shouldn't even have to have this conversation.

Victor, Life is what we see it or seeing spirits in everything or spirits that never die is a way of seeing life. This is not a reason for life but an expression of life itself. So if you believe in these things you still live the life for itself. So you could stay in the tribe! ;D

Wilderness lives, Civilization promises of a life valuable enough to worth living, a purpose for this miserable life it has made. That is what I meant.

It's similar to how I feel about conventional economics. The very definition is, "A system for distributing scarce resources among a population." But when you take resources to be scarce, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

That's how I feel about "survival of the fittest." It prophesies that life is just a constant quest for survival.

We get to choose what we believe; in other words, life is what you make of it.

Ai read "Survival of the Sickest" and ai have to say it was pretty dam good! It explains what environmental factors selected for people with diabetes, sickle cell anemia and a few other horribel things like that. It talks about really cool stuff, like why diabetes helped europeans survive the freezing temperatures of the ice age (blood sugar decreaces the freezing point of blood, preserving limbs from frostbite, longer) and how other animals do similar things. Lots of great stuff about skin color and loads of small adaptations ai never knew humans had before. The book starts out talking about this blood condition that runs in the authors family and how he found out (cant remember the name, homeo- something or hoe-somthing). Turns out, the best treatment for it is blood-letting, so the author is now a regular blood donor!

Tonight I was reading section62 of Schoepenhauer's main work (One of the few books I didn't burn) and came to this passage which relates to this topic perfectly:

"The concept of right as the negation of wrong [extending to affirm one's will so far that it becomes the denial of another's will] finds its principal application in those cases where an attempted wrong by violence is warded off...If an individual goes so far in the affirmation of his own will that he encroaches on the sphere of the will-affirmation essential to my person as such, and denies this, then my warding off of that encroachment is only the denial of that denial...consequently it is not wrong and is therefore right. This means then that I have a right to deny that other person's denial with what force is necessary to suppress it; and it is easy to see that this may extend even to the killing of the other person whose encrochment as pressing external violence can be warded off with a counteraction somewhat stronger than this, without any wrong... Thus if the will of another denies my will, as this appears in my body and in the use of its powers for its preservation without denying anyone else's will that observes a like limitation, then I can compel it without wrong to desist from this denial".

By the light of this passage, I see a right for myself to kill a patrol or whatever that person may be, who wants to stop me in whatever way it may be, from living my way of life that practically doesn't deny anyone else's right to do so. What do you think?

I agree, a defintion of "fittest" is probably necessary for a discussion about the concept of "survival of the fittest". Fittest in what way? Toughest? Smartest? Most ruthless? Highest sperm count? Best negotiator?

In case your wondering, the term 'survivial of the fittest' was coined by a drop kick from the eugenics movement, and actually has no scientific basis, and no real connection to evolutionary theory other than misappropriation and timing.

From an evolutionary point of view, as I understand it, 'fitness' (or natural selection) is post hoc. Its not something designed. It is quite simply that if the organism lived long enough to shag and make babies, said trait of organism is also transmitted. However, organism without said trait did not shag and left no babies. Therefore, said trait is naturally selected, and implies it was a better alternative to achieve survivial of said organism.

Nothing deliberate about it. It's random mostly, and reactionary at most... and could be anything from being blind to having 2000 eyes.

In other words, in one situation the killing would be a more effective survival strategy than others. However, the act of killing does not always imply a comparitively greater propensity to kill, perhaps just a greater reaction to stimuli that suggest the neccesisty to kill. And that 'reaction' could mean (and usually does) the abdanonment of reason for passion, or what we usually call 'the heat of the moment'.

By the way, this a biological reality for all humans......so there's no high horse to jump on.....

Which, in a nutshell, makes this conversation completely redundant, because we don't know what we'd really do unless we've been there and done that.

There are ways. Training in situations where you can't just putting yourself through simulations of the experience. Mentally, you can prepare yourself for a situations just by imagining them. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's worlds ahead of nothing. At the very least, you will react faster because a lot of your processing will have been done before the event. And in many cases this role playing is all we can do to prepare.

Rewilders!It is years I haven't seen someone who wants to only listen to my Ideas. I don't want to feel the same feeling in this forum. Don't let me feel mad. Tell me what you think about my crazy ideas. And here, willingness to kill, I don't give a damn to the survival of the fittest, but I do care about killing and being killed. I like it.

I was curious what it is you like about killing and being killed? We all have natural survival instincts of fight, flight or freeze, flight is usually the first to come up under a threat. If an animal can't run away from the threat, then fight comes up (road rage, anyone???). I was in a group of people talking about whether we could kill anybody, and there were only two of us who unhesitatingly said "yes, absolutely" ... we were both mothers, and we both knew that if anything threatened our children we would do whatever we needed to to protect them. You know how those mother bears are always the most dangerous When neither flight nor fight is possible (almost all situations in civilization) then we get stuck in a "freeze" response, and so we walk around like zombies. Perhaps you are struggling with some freeze or frozen fight charge in your nervous system? I think it was Tom Brown Jr. who said a warrior is the last to pick up the lance, violence as a last resort for protection of the tribe. I always consider any kind of coercion - including violence - a failure ..... sometimes necessary but always a failure that the underlying threats and conflicts couldn't be worked out. But that doesn't mean that the "fight" - or rage and anger of being hemmed in and violated isn't real and doesn't need an outlet.

I was curious what it is you like about killing and being killed? We all have natural survival instincts of fight, flight or freeze, flight is usually the first to come up under a threat.

Well, to be honest Im curious too! Total agreement with your analysis. Healthy creatures do choose flight if possible and, in the case of a reasoning animal, if appropriate. But this doesnt mean that when the time arrives to kill that healthy animal shouldn't like to fight, which means to kill or to be killed. Wounding or paralyzing generally wont do in a wild situation, at least in case of men. Revenge is the cause. So I agree that being a warrior or a layman, we better choose flight if possible, and we all do that, then I add that nevertheless fight has its own place, and I seriously like it and its consequences. Lets put it this way. In the wild, conflict is a daily reality and in a good percentage of them fight is inescapable. So a savage wakes up in the morning and reminds himself that today a conflict may come up. He does this because he doesnt want to be suprised. And he knows that he may not be able to escape, so he must be ready for a fight, for death. If he doesn't like it then he would have a great contradiction all day "in his mind" even if a conflict doesnt happen. So he will eventually set his mind to await the fight. to long for it. to like it. The validity of this view is proved by observing the remaining wild and semi-wild tribes round the world, and I was fortunate enough to have access to some of them, Kurds and Turkmens of Iran. I strongly resist calling this behavior violence, which is entirely irrelevant.

marita:

Perhaps you are struggling with some freeze or frozen fight charge in your nervous system?

As a civilized person(atleast historically) I share this trait with all my fellow civilians! But this doesn't affect the preceding the least. I think so. Well its time to go back to my mountain refuge! Ill be back to hear what you all think.MR

What this brings to mind to me was an experience from when I was live trapping small mammals on the Konza prairie for a research project. Most of the mice would go into freeze so I could weigh/measure/mark them.... but the 13 lined ground squirrels would go into a fight frenzy.... I could never hold onto those little guys, I had great admiration for that spirit. that focussed adrenaline fueled fight is a force to behold. I think part of the practice we do in martial arts is to prepare the body to respond appropriately to a threat, to not freeze. and because of how domesticated we are, how conditioned we are to freeze, we need to practice. and army basic training does the same thing to people?

Perhaps a throwback to my Apache heritage, I found out that Fight rather than Flight always seemed to be the first reaction my body prepared for in a confrontation.Military training showed me that Flight offers a better chance to live longer, albeit less rewarding to the ego. This training also showed me that when one has no choice but to fight that a mindset of do Anything to win is required to survive.This mindset resulted in my becoming a well conditioned killing machine with whatever was at hand including my body. It became such a conditioned response that it was automatic in even the most mundane activities.After years of military work the intelligent part of my brain realized that Fight or Flight always resulted from being placed in a situation that was contrary to my personal beliefs.So while I have no moral objection to Killing another human when my life is in danger, I do however object to being "forced" into a situation that requires me to make that choice.Life is not something precious that needs to be protected but it is something that makes us all brothers and sisters that are capable of protecting ourselves. That some choose to give up their life rather than fight, while others will fight to keep that life, is nothing more than a personal not a genetic choice.Society and most civilizations try to rationalize this to the extremes, with the more decadent veiwing all life as cheap and not worth fighting for.A personal view point of mine and is to be taken however you wish.

I think one of the signs that most societies nowadays are hoob (hopelessly out of balance) is that the men don't walk around day to day carrying weapons all the time, wherever they go. Some still do, but in most of the first world countries the only ones who do are the hunters and tribal people who still live full time out on the land.

This, to me, is unheard of in the history of the human species. We always carried weapons in the past, for hunting, for defence, mostly for opportunity hunting but also for defense against other humans and predators. One thing I miss about my childhood and teen years is walking around with my shotgun everywhere all the time out in the country where I lived. No one cared back then among my neighbors, I would walk in the open prairie for miles lugging that heavy ol 16 gauge, mostly just for the hell of it and for hunting birds now and then but nonetheless It just felt natural as a young boy to go out on the land carrying a weapon.

Whenever I am back out carrying a weapon in the country, whether it's the prairie or the desert, it's like I am a kid again and I feel at peace and more free or something, I t feels like that is how people were meant to travel and live, carrying weapons all the time, taking meat as the opportunity presents itself and having them ready for defence if necessary.

One of my good friends overseas always carries his Kalashnikov with him in his truck and in his camp, he doesn't use it for hunting much, but he likes having it around and I prefer that my close friends carry weapons, I think that people carrying weapons leads to a more respectful social situation, not all the time and in every case, but generally speaking.

To live in a social situation where only uniformed police (and mafia/gangs) carry weapons while the rest of the populace is un-armed or without weapons, it just seems wrong to some basic instinct inside and I don't agree with it. It also seems to lead to more oppression and a loss of self-sufficiency and dependence on store-bought meat.

Sandwalker, I think your post implies that we are predators, killing creatures. And Big man doesnt like us to be predators. So we are tought to deny this instinct.Now how can we rewild without embracing this very essential instinct? What would be the meaning of Wild man without predating? I ask you all.MR

I think we are taught to deny many instincts and natural behaviors in order to function and "get by" in modern-day society, especially in the cities. In order to meet our subsistence needs we are programmed to obtain money for the grocery store. We are taught to deceive ourselves that we can't get better, healthier meat through our own interaction with animals out on the land. That killing and cutting up an animal is disgusting, un-civilized, etc etc. All lies to keep us lazy, eat chips and pop, pay taxes, be apathetic, watch TV.

IMO we have to go back to living on the land as that is where the meat always is (as opposed to urban environments), go back to clan-based social arrangements, go back to carrying weapons, go back to hunting for our food and stop buying meat in the grocery store.

I am the most drawn to hunters and nomad herders because I have found I prefer hunting and herding compared to any other full time job and associating and living with those who do the same, people who don't mediate with alien social groups (like the big man) to obtain their meat. How can you feed yourself WTSHTF if you are always buying meat from someone else? It will always be the most nutritious and important food so it makes sense to hunt or herd it yourself!

It's natural that a man feels empowerment when he obtains his own meat through his own effort. Likewise, it's natural that a man feels disempowered when he buys meat from some foreigner (clerk) and is cut off from the whole process of obtaining it himself (hunting-killing-butchering-cooking-eating-satisfaction).

I think people need to stop working jobs they hate and at least hunt/herd/keep chickens or pigs for half of their meat needs, and go from there. That's the only solution I can think of for people looking to re-wild. Start somewhere. I think it's the starting somewhere that have most people stuck.

I think the meaning of Wild man without predating in the natural way, is Domestic man predating on other domestic men, women, children, etc and getting in fights at the bar, at the football game, hitting the wife, and all the other modern ways men expend their predator energy when they should be utilizing that energy for hunting food.